banner



Home  ›  Which Of The Following Reasons Explain Why Judicial Interpretations Such As Loving Change Over Time

Which Of The Following Reasons Explain Why Judicial Interpretations Such As Loving Change Over Time

Written By Thursday, April 28, 2022 Add Comment Edit

1967 U.S. Supreme Courtroom case abolishing restrictions on interracial marriage

1967 United States Supreme Court case

Loving v. Virginia

Supreme Courtroom of the United States
Argued April 10, 1967
Decided June 12, 1967
Total example proper noun Richard Perry Loving, Mildred Jeter Loving v. Virginia
Citations 388 U.S. 1 (more than)

87 S. Ct. 1817; 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010; 1967 U.S. LEXIS 1082
Argument Oral argument
Case history
Prior Defendants convicted, Caroline County Circuit Courtroom (January 6, 1959); motion to vacate judgment denied, Caroline County Circuit Court (Jan 22, 1959); affirmed in part, reversed and remanded, 147 S.East.2d 78 (Va. 1966); cert. granted, 385 U.Southward. 986 (1966).
Holding
Bans on interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Usa Constitution.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Acquaintance Justices
Hugo Black· William O. Douglas
Tom C. Clark· John 1000. Harlan Ii
William J. Brennan Jr.· Potter Stewart
Byron White· Abe Fortas
Case opinions
Bulk Warren, joined by unanimous
Concurrence Stewart
Laws applied
U.Southward. Const. amend. XIV; Va. Lawmaking §§ 20–58, 20–59

This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Step five. Alabama (1883)

Loving five. Virginia , 388 U.S. 1 (1967), was a landmark civil rights decision of the U.S. Supreme Courtroom in which the Courtroom ruled that laws banning interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.South. Constitution.[1] [2] Beginning in 2013, it was cited as precedent in U.South. federal court decisions holding restrictions on same-sex marriage in the United states of america unconstitutional, including in the 2015 Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges.[3]

The instance involved Mildred Loving, a woman of colour,[note 1] and her white husband Richard Loving, who in 1958 were sentenced to a twelvemonth in prison for marrying each other. Their marriage violated Virginia'southward Racial Integrity Human action of 1924, which criminalized marriage between people classified as "white" and people classified every bit "colored". The Lovings appealed their conviction to the Supreme Courtroom of Virginia, which upheld information technology. They so appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear their case.

In June 1967, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in the Lovings' favor and overturned their convictions. Its determination struck down Virginia's anti-miscegenation police force and concluded all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States. Virginia had argued that its police force was non a violation of the Equal Protection Clause because the punishment was the same regardless of the offender'south race, and thus it "as burdened" both whites and non-whites.[four] The Court found that the law nevertheless violated the Equal Protection Clause because it was based solely on "distinctions drawn according to race" and outlawed deport—namely, getting married—that was otherwise mostly accepted and which citizens were costless to do.[4]

Background [edit]

Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States [edit]

Anti-miscegenation laws had been in place in certain states since colonial days. In the Reconstruction Era in 1865, the Black Codes across the 7 states of the lower South fabricated interracial wedlock illegal. The new Republican legislatures in six states repealed the restrictive laws. By 1894, when the Democratic Party in the South returned to power, restrictions were reimposed.[v]

A major concern was how to draw the line between blackness and white in a society in which white men had many children with enslaved blackness women. On the one hand, a person's reputation every bit black or white was usually what mattered in practice. On the other mitt, most laws used a "one driblet of blood" dominion, which meant that one blackness ancestor fabricated a person black in the view of the police.[6] In 1967, sixteen states still retained anti-miscegenation laws, mainly in the American South.[seven]

Plaintiffs [edit]

Mildred Delores Loving was the daughter of Musial (Byrd) Jeter and Theoliver Jeter.[8] She self-identified equally Indian-Rappahannock,[9] just was as well reported as being of Cherokee, Portuguese, and African American ancestry.[10] [11] During the trial, information technology seemed articulate that she identified herself as black, particularly as far as her ain lawyer was concerned. All the same, upon her arrest, the police report identified her as "Indian".

Richard Perry Loving was a white man, the son of Lola (Allen) Loving and Twillie Loving. Their families both lived in Caroline County, Virginia, which adhered to strict Jim Crow segregation laws, but their town of Central Point had been a visible mixed-race community since the 19th century.[12] The couple met in loftier school and fell in love.

Mildred became significant, and in June 1958, the couple traveled to Washington, D.C. to marry, thereby evading Virginia'south Racial Integrity Deed of 1924, which made wedlock between whites and not-whites a crime.[thirteen] A few weeks after they returned to Central Point, local police raided their home in the early morning hours of July xi, 1958,[xiv] hoping to find them having sex, given that interracial sex was then also illegal in Virginia. When the officers found the Lovings sleeping in their bed, Mildred pointed out their spousal relationship document on the chamber wall. They were told the certificate was non valid in Virginia.[15]

Criminal proceedings [edit]

The Lovings were charged under Department 20-58 of the Virginia Code, which prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia, and Department 20-59, which classified miscegenation equally a felony, punishable by a prison judgement of between ane and five years.[sixteen]

On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pled guilty to "cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth". They were sentenced to one year in prison house, with the sentence suspended on condition that the couple leave Virginia and not return together for at least 25 years. Later their confidence, the couple moved to the District of Columbia.[17]

Appellate proceedings [edit]

In 1963,[18] frustrated by their inability to travel together to visit their families in Virginia, every bit well as their social isolation and financial difficulties in Washington, Mildred Loving wrote in protestation to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy.[19] Kennedy referred her to the American Ceremonious Liberties Wedlock (ACLU).[xx] The ACLU assigned volunteer cooperating attorneys Bernard S. Cohen and Philip J. Hirschkop, who filed a move on behalf of the Lovings in Virginia'due south Caroline Canton Circuit Courtroom, that requested the court to vacate the criminal judgments and set aside the Lovings' sentences on the grounds that the Virginia miscegenation statutes ran counter to the Fourteenth Amendment'due south Equal Protection Clause.[21]

On October 28, 1964, after waiting almost a year for a response to their motion, the ACLU attorneys brought a form activity arrange in the U.S. Commune Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This prompted the county court judge in the case, Leon M. Bazile (1890–1967), to result a ruling on the long-awaiting motion to vacate. Echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th-century estimation of race, Bazile denied the motion with the words:

Almighty God created the races white, blackness, yellowish, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would exist no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did non intend for the races to mix.[22]

On January 22, 1965, a iii-judge district court console postponed decision on the federal class-activeness case while the Lovings appealed Judge Bazile's decision on constitutional grounds to the Virginia Supreme Court. On March 7, 1966, Justice Harry L. Carrico (later Master Justice of the Courtroom) wrote an opinion for the court upholding the constitutionality of the anti-miscegenation statutes.[23] Carrico cited equally authority the Virginia Supreme Court'due south decision in Naim 5. Naim (1955) and ruled that criminalization of the Lovings' marriage was not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, because both the white and the not-white spouse were punished equally for miscegenation, a line of reasoning that echoed that of the The states Supreme Court in 1883 in Pace v. Alabama.[24] However, the courtroom did discover the Lovings' sentences to be unconstitutionally vague, ordering that they exist resentenced in the Caroline Canton Circuit Courtroom.

The Lovings, all the same supported past the ACLU, appealed the state supreme court's decision to the Supreme Courtroom of the United States, where Virginia was represented by Robert McIlwaine of the country'southward chaser general's role. The Supreme Court agreed on Dec 12, 1966, to have the case for final review. The Lovings did not attend the oral arguments in Washington,[25] but one of their lawyers, Bernard Southward. Cohen, conveyed the personal bulletin he had been given by Richard Loving: "Mr. Cohen, tell the Court I dear my wife, and information technology is merely unfair that I can't live with her in Virginia."[26] [27]

Precedents [edit]

Appointment range where U.S. states repealed anti-miscegenation laws:

 No laws ever passed

 1780 to 1887

 1948 to 1967

 Invalidated June 12, 1967, past Loving decision

Before Loving v. Virginia, in that location had been several cases on the subject of interracial sexual relations. Within the state of Virginia, on October 3, 1878, in Kinney v. The Commonwealth, the Supreme Court of Virginia ruled that the matrimony legalized in Washington, D.C. between Andrew Kinney, a black man, and Mahala Miller, a white woman, was "invalid" in Virginia.[28] In the national instance of Pace v. Alabama (1883), the Supreme Court of the U.s. ruled that the conviction of an Alabama couple for interracial sex, affirmed on entreatment by the Alabama Supreme Courtroom, did non violate the Fourteenth Amendment.[29] Interracial marital sexual practice was deemed a felony, whereas extramarital sexual practice ("infidelity or fornication") was but a misdemeanor.[thirty]

On entreatment, the United states Supreme Court ruled that the criminalization of interracial sex was non a violation of the Equal Protection Clause because whites and non-whites were punished in equal measure for the offense of engaging in interracial sex activity. The court did not need to affirm the constitutionality of the ban on interracial wedlock that was also part of Alabama's anti-miscegenation police, since the plaintiff, Mr. Pace, had chosen not to appeal that department of the constabulary. Later Footstep v. Alabama, the constitutionality of anti-miscegenation laws banning matrimony and sex between whites and non-whites remained unchallenged until the 1920s.[30]

In Kirby v. Kirby (1921), Mr. Kirby asked the state of Arizona for an disparateness of his marriage. He charged that his marriage was invalid because his wife was of "negro" descent, thus violating the state'south anti-miscegenation law. The Arizona Supreme Court judged Mrs. Kirby'southward race by observing her physical characteristics and adamant that she was of mixed race, therefore granting Mr. Kirby's annulment.[31]

In the Monks case (Manor of Monks, four. Civ. 2835, Records of California Court of Appeals, Fourth district), the Superior Courtroom of San Diego Canton in 1939 decided to invalidate the matrimony of Marie Antoinette and Allan Monks considering she was deemed to have "ane 8th negro blood". The court case involved a legal challenge over the conflicting wills that had been left by the belatedly Allan Monks; an old one in favor of a friend named Ida Lee, and a newer one in favor of his wife. Lee's lawyers charged that the marriage of the Monkses, which had taken place in Arizona, was invalid under Arizona country constabulary because Marie Antoinette was "a Negro" and Alan had been white. Despite conflicting testimony by diverse expert witnesses, the judge divers Mrs. Monks' race past relying on the anatomical "expertise" of a surgeon. The judge ignored the arguments of an anthropologist and a biologist that information technology was impossible to tell a person's race from physical characteristics.[32]

Monks and then challenged the Arizona anti-miscegenation police itself, taking her case to the California Court of Appeals, 4th District. Monks' lawyers pointed out that the anti-miscegenation law effectively prohibited Monks as a mixed-race person from marrying anyone: "Every bit such, she is prohibited from marrying a negro or any descendant of a negro, a Mongolian or an Indian, a Malay or a Hindu, or any descendants of whatever of them. Likewise ... equally a descendant of a negro she is prohibited from marrying a Caucasian or a descendant of a Caucasian." The Arizona anti-miscegenation statute thus prohibited Monks from contracting a valid marriage in Arizona, and was therefore an unconstitutional constraint on her freedom. However, the court dismissed this argument equally extraneous, because the case presented involved non two mixed-race spouses merely a mixed-race and a white spouse: "Under the facts presented the appellant does not have the benefit of assailing the validity of the statute."[33] Dismissing Monks' entreatment in 1942, the United states of america Supreme Court refused to reopen the upshot.[33]

The turning signal came with Perez v. Sharp (1948), also known as Perez v. Lippold. In Perez, the Supreme Court of California recognized that bans on interracial marriage violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution.[34]

Supreme Courtroom decision [edit]

On June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous 9–0 decision in favor of the Lovings that overturned their criminal convictions and struck down Virginia's anti-miscegenation constabulary. The Court'southward opinion was written by master justice Earl Warren, and all the justices joined it.[note 2]

The Court start addressed whether Virginia's Racial Integrity Act violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which reads: "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Virginia officials had argued that the Act did non violate the Equal Protection Clause because it "equally burdened" both whites and non-whites, since the punishment for violating the statute was the same regardless of the offender's race: for case, a white person who married a black person was subject to the aforementioned penalties as a blackness person who married a white person.

The Court had accepted this "equal brunt" argument 84 years earlier in its 1883 decision Pace v. Alabama. But in Loving, the Court rejected the argument and overruled Pace. The Court held that because the races of the people involved were the but factors determining whether they broke the law, the Act violated the Equal Protection Clause.[36]

In that location tin can be no question simply that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions fatigued according to race. The statutes proscribe more often than not accepted deport if engaged in by members of different races. Over the years, this Court has consistently repudiated "[d]istinctions between citizens solely because of their beginnings" as existence "odious to a gratuitous people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality." At the very to the lowest degree, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the "most rigid scrutiny" ....
     There is evidently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial bigotry which justifies this classification. ... We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the cardinal significant of the Equal Protection Clause.

— Loving, 388 U.South. at xi–12 (first alteration in original) (citations omitted).[37]

The Courtroom ended its stance with a curt section holding that Virginia'south anti-miscegenation law also violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.[38] The Court said that the liberty to marry is a fundamental constitutional right, and it held that depriving Americans of information technology on an arbitrary basis such as race was unconstitutional.[38]

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The liberty to marry has long been recognized equally one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by costless men.
     Marriage is i of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications and so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.

— Loving, 388 U.S. at 12 (citations omitted).[39]

Effects [edit]

For interracial marriage [edit]

Despite the Supreme Court'southward decision, anti-miscegenation laws remained on the books in several states, although the conclusion had made them unenforceable. Land judges in Alabama continued to enforce its anti-miscegenation statute until 1970, when the Nixon administration obtained a ruling from a U.Southward. District Court in United States 5. Brittain.[forty] [41] In 2000, Alabama became the last country to adapt its laws to the Supreme Court's determination, when 60% of voters endorsed a constitutional subpoena, Amendment 2, that removed anti-miscegenation language from the state constitution.[42]

After Loving v. Virginia, the number of interracial marriages continued to increase across the United States[43] and in the Due south. In Georgia, for case, the number of interracial marriages increased from 21 in 1967 to 115 in 1970.[44] At the national level, 0.four% of marriages were interracial in 1960, 2.0% in 1980,[45] 12% in 2013,[46] and 16% in 2015, nearly l years afterward Loving.[47]

For same-sex activity matrimony [edit]

Loving v. Virginia was discussed in the context of the public fence about aforementioned-sex marriage in the Us.[48]

In Hernandez v. Robles (2006), the majority opinion of the New York Court of Appeals—that state's highest court—declined to rely on the Loving example when deciding whether a right to same-sex marriage existed, holding that "the historical background of Loving is dissimilar from the history underlying this example."[49] In the 2010 federal district court decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, overturning California'southward Proposition 8 which restricted marriage to reverse-sexual practice couples, Judge Vaughn R. Walker cited Loving v. Virginia to conclude that "the [constitutional] right to marry protects an individual's choice of marital partner regardless of gender".[50] On narrower grounds, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.[51] [52]

In June 2007, on the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court'due south decision in Loving, Mildred Loving issued the following statement:

My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and correct. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God's plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in honey. Only I have lived long enough now to come across big changes. The older generation'due south fears and prejudices accept given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to ally.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our dear, our right to ally, and how much it meant to me to have that liberty to ally the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to ally. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sexual practice, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people'southward civil rights.

I am withal not a political person, merely I am proud that Richard'south and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that and then many people, black or white, immature or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to ally for all. That'southward what Loving, and loving, are all about.[53] [54] [55]

Up until 2014, five U.S. Courts of Appeals considered the constitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriage. In doing and then they interpreted or used the Loving ruling differently:

  • The Fourth and Tenth Circuits used Loving along with other cases like Zablocki 5. Redhail [56] and Turner 5. Safley [57] to demonstrate that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized a "central right to marry" that a state cannot restrict unless it meets the courtroom'south "heightened scrutiny" standard. Using that standard, both courts struck down country bans on aforementioned-sexual practice marriage.[58] [59]
  • Two other courts of appeals, the Seventh and Ninth Circuits, struck down state bans on the footing of a unlike line of argument. Instead of "fundamental rights" assay, they reviewed bans on same-sex spousal relationship as discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The onetime cited Loving to demonstrate that the Supreme Court did non accept tradition equally a justification for limiting admission to marriage.[60] The latter cited Loving as quoted in United States five. Windsor on the question of federalism: "state laws defining or regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons".[61]
  • The just Court of Appeals to uphold state bans on aforementioned-sex activity wedlock, the Sixth Excursion, said that when the Loving decision discussed marriage information technology was referring merely to wedlock between persons of the opposite sex activity.[62]

In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Supreme Court invoked Loving, among other cases, every bit precedent for its holding that states are required to let same-sex marriages under both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.[iii] The courtroom'southward conclusion in Obergefell cited Loving about a dozen times, and was based on the same principles – equality and an unenumerated right to marriage. During oral argument, the eventual writer of the bulk opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy, noted that the ruling holding racial segregation unconstitutional and the ruling holding bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional (Dark-brown five. Board of Didactics in 1954 and Loving 5. Virginia in 1967, respectively) were fabricated about xiii years apart, much similar the ruling belongings bans on aforementioned-sex sexual action unconstitutional and the eventual ruling holding bans on same-sexual practice marriage unconstitutional (Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 and Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, respectively).[63]

In popular civilisation [edit]

Graves of the Lovings in the St. Stephen's Baptist Church cemetery, Key Indicate, Virginia

In the The states, June 12, the date of the determination, has become known every bit Loving Day, an almanac unofficial celebration of interracial marriages. In 2014, Mildred Loving was honored as one of the Library of Virginia's "Virginia Women in History".[64] In 2017, the Virginia Department of Historic Resource dedicated a state historical marker, which tells the story of the Lovings, outside the Patrick Henry Building in Richmond – the former site of the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.[65]

The story of the Lovings became the basis of several films:

  • The first, Mr. and Mrs. Loving (1996), was written and directed by Richard Friedenberg and starred Lela Rochon, Timothy Hutton, and Cherry Dee.[66] According to Mildred Loving, "not much of information technology was very truthful. The but part of information technology correct was I had iii children."[67] [68]
  • Nancy Buirski's documentary The Loving Story, premiered on HBO in February 2012[69] [70] and won a Peabody Honour that year.[71]
  • Loving, a dramatized telling of the story based on Buirski's documentary, was released in 2016. It was directed by Jeff Nichols and starred Ruth Negga and Joel Edgerton as the Lovings. Negga received an Academy Honour nomination for her functioning.[72]
  • A four-part moving picture, The Loving Generation, premiered on Topic.com in Feb 2018. Directed and produced by Lacey Schwartz and Mehret Mandefro, it explores the lives of biracial children built-in after the Loving decision.[73] [74] [75]

In music, Nanci Griffith's 2009 anthology The Loving Kind is named for the Lovings and includes a song well-nigh them. Satirist Roy Zimmerman'south 2009 vocal The Summertime of Loving is about the Lovings and their 1967 case.[76] The title is a reference to the Summer of Love.

A 2015 novel past the French announcer Gilles Biassette, L'amour des Loving ("The Love of the Lovings", ISBN 978-2917559598), recounts the life of the Lovings and their case.[77] A photograph-essay about the couple by Gray Villet, created just before the instance, was republished in 2017.[78]

References [edit]

Informational notes

  1. ^ Mildred Loving's precise racial groundwork remains unclear. Most sources describe her equally black, only she denied being black and often said she was Native American. Come across the Plaintiffs department for details.
  2. ^ The decision also includes a very brusque concurring stance—but two sentences long—written past justice Potter Stewart. Stewart wrote that, in his opinion, no land criminal police force could exist valid "which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the histrion" (as he wrote in his concurrence in McLaughlin v. Florida, a similar example in 1964), a standard which reflects justice John Marshall Harlan's dissent in 1896'due south Plessy v. Ferguson.[35]

Citations

  1. ^ Loving five. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
  2. ^ Nowak & Rotunda (2012), § 18.28(a), pp. 80–81.
  3. ^ a b Obergefell five. Hodges, No. 14-556, 576 U.S. ___ (2015)
  4. ^ a b Chemerinsky (2019), § nine.3.1, p. 757.
  5. ^ Wallenstein, Peter (August 16, 2006). "Reconstruction, Segregation, and Miscegenation: Interracial Marriage and the Law in the Lower South, 1865–1900". American Nineteenth Century History. six: 57–76. doi:10.1080/14664650500121827. S2CID 144811039. On the eve of Congressional Reconstruction, all seven states of the Lower South had laws against interracial marriage. During the Republican interlude that began in 1867–68, six of the seven states (all but Georgia) suspended those laws, whether through judicial invalidation or legislative repeal. All the same by 1894 all six had restored such bans.
  6. ^ Peter Wallenstein, "Reconstruction, Segregation, and Miscegenation: Interracial Spousal relationship and the Law in the Lower South, 1865–1900." American Nineteenth Century History 6#ane (2005): 57–76.
  7. ^ Loving, 388 U.South. at 6.
  8. ^ "Mildred Loving obituary". Archived from the original on Oct 27, 2016. Retrieved October 26, 2016.
  9. ^ "What You Didn't Know About Loving v. Virginia". Fourth dimension. Archived from the original on February 15, 2017. Retrieved February 22, 2017.
  10. ^ Lawing, Charles B. "Loving five. Virginia and the Hegemony of 'Race'" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 4, 2007. Retrieved Dec 10, 2017.
  11. ^ Walker, Dionne (June 10, 2007). "Pioneer of interracial marriage looks dorsum". Associated Press . Retrieved April 27, 2015.
  12. ^ Staples, Brent (May 14, 2008). "Loving five. Virginia and the Hole-and-corner History of Race". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved April 8, 2018.
  13. ^ "Racial Integrity Laws (1924–1930)". Encyclopedia Virginia. Archived from the original on Nov 15, 2015. Retrieved November iv, 2015.
  14. ^ "Mildred Loving – Ceremonious Rights Activist – Biography.com". Biography.com. A&E Television Networks, LLC. Archived from the original on February 11, 2017. Retrieved Feb 20, 2017.
  15. ^ "The Loving Couple". The Attic . Retrieved March 17, 2021.
  16. ^ Robbins, Rohn (April 28, 2020). "Robbins: How Loving vs Virginia dealt a major blow to segregation". Vail Daily . Retrieved Jan 28, 2021.
  17. ^ Loving, 388 U.Southward. at 3 ("On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to one year in jail; nonetheless, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the status that the Lovings go out the Land and not return to Virginia together for 25 years ... Later on their convictions, the Lovings took up residence in the District of Columbia.")
  18. ^ Williams, Joe. "The Arc Of Loving". Richmond Magazine. Richmond Magazine. Retrieved March 12, 2022.
  19. ^ "Mildred Loving, Key Effigy in Civil Rights Era, Dies". PBS Online News Hour. May vi, 2008. Archived from the original on June xiii, 2017. Retrieved January 28, 2021.
  20. ^ Douglas, Martin (May 6, 2008). "Mildred Loving, Who Battled Ban on Mixed-Race Marriage, Dies at 68". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December one, 2016.
  21. ^ Jones, Christina Violeta (Feb 25, 2014). "Virginia is for the Lovings". Rediscovering Black History. National Archives. Retrieved January 28, 2021.
  22. ^ "Opinion of Approximate Bazile in Commonwealth v. Loving (January 22, 1965)". www.encyclopediavirginia.org. Archived from the original on November 28, 2016. Retrieved November 27, 2016.
  23. ^ "Loving 5. Commonwealth (March seven, 1966)". www.encyclopediavirginia.org. Archived from the original on September x, 2015. Retrieved November 4, 2015.
  24. ^ Loving 5. Commonwealth , 206 Va. 924 (1966).
  25. ^ Sheppard, Kate (February thirteen, 2012). "'The Loving Story': How an Interracial Couple Inverse a Nation". Mother Jones. Archived from the original on February 20, 2017.
  26. ^ "Loving v. Virginia oral argument transcript". Archived from the original on November 15, 2016. Retrieved November 27, 2016.
  27. ^ "Loving v. Virginia (1967)". Encyclopedia Virginia. Archived from the original on December 14, 2012.
  28. ^ Dark-brown, DeNeen (June 11, 2017). "Before Loving v. Virginia, another interracial couple fought in court for their marriage". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 11 June 2017. Retrieved 11 June 2017.
  29. ^ Stride v. Alabama, 106 U.S. 583 (1883)
  30. ^ a b Pinsker, Matthew (June xv, 2017). "The history behind Loving v. Virginia". Interactive Constitution . Retrieved October xv, 2020.
  31. ^ Pascoe 1996, pp. 49–51
  32. ^ Pascoe 1996, p. 56
  33. ^ a b Pascoe 1996, p. 60
  34. ^ "Perez v Sharp". Justia . Retrieved March 17, 2021.
  35. ^ Schoff, Rebecca (2009). "Note: Deciding on Doctrine: Anti-Miscegnation Statutes and the Development of Equal Protection Analysis". Virginia Constabulary Review. 95 (3): 627–665.
  36. ^ Nowak & Rotunda (2012), § 18.28(a), pp. eighty–81.
  37. ^ Quoted in part in Chemerinsky (2019), § 9.3.1, p. 757.
  38. ^ a b Chemerinsky (2019), § ten.ii.1, p. 863.
  39. ^ Quoted in Chemerinsky (2019), § 10.2.1, p. 863.
  40. ^ United States 5. Brittain , 319 F. Supp. 1058 (N.D. Ala. 1970).
  41. ^ Rosenthal, Jack (December 4, 1970). "Government Seeks to Allow A Mixed Matrimony in Alabama" (PDF). The New York Times . Retrieved Jan 25, 2015.
  42. ^ Sengupta, Somini (November 12, 2000). "November 5–11; Ally at Will". The New York Times. Archived from the original on August 21, 2009. Retrieved May 27, 2009. The margin by which the measure passed was itself a argument. A clear majority, 60 per centum, voted to remove the miscegenation statute from the state constitution, but forty per centum of Alabamans – most 526,000 people – voted to keep information technology.
  43. ^ "Interracial marriage flourishes in U.S." NBC News. April 15, 2007. Retrieved Dec 13, 2012.
  44. ^ Aldridge, The Changing Nature of Interracial Marriage in Georgia: A Enquiry Annotation, 1973
  45. ^ "Table 1. Race of Married woman by Race of Husband: 1960, 1970, 1980, 1991, and 1992". census.gov. U.Due south. Bureau of the Census. July 5, 1994. Archived from the original on March 4, 2017. Retrieved February 20, 2017.
  46. ^ "Interracial spousal relationship: Who is 'marrying out'?". Pew Research Center. June 12, 2015. Archived from the original on Baronial 12, 2016. Retrieved August 11, 2016.
  47. ^ "Intermarriage beyond the U.S. by metro area". Pew Research Center's Social & Demographic Trends Project. May 18, 2017. Archived from the original on June 6, 2017. Retrieved June eleven, 2017.
  48. ^ Trei, Lisa (June 13, 2007). "Loving v. Virginia provides roadmap for same-sex activity marriage advocates". News.stanford.edu. Archived from the original on December xiii, 2012. Retrieved December 13, 2012.
  49. ^ Hernandez five. Robles , 855 N.E.3d 1 (N.Y. 2006).
  50. ^ Perry five. Schwarzenegger , 704 F. Supp. 2nd 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010).
  51. ^ Nagoruney, Adam (February seven, 2012). "Court Strikes Downwardly Ban on Gay Union in California". The New York Times. Archived from the original on Feb 11, 2012. Retrieved Feb 8, 2012.
  52. ^ Perry 5. Brownish , 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012).
  53. ^ "Mildred Loving Endorses Wedlock Equality for Same-Sex Couples". American Constitution Club. June xv, 2007. Retrieved July 24, 2018.
  54. ^ Douglas Martin (June 18, 2007). "Mildred Loving, 40 Years Later". The Atlantic. Retrieved March 11, 2015.
  55. ^ Douglas Martin (May half-dozen, 2008). "Mildred Loving, Who Battled Ban on Mixed-Race Marriage, Dies at 68". New York Times . Retrieved July 14, 2018.
  56. ^ Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.Southward. 374 (1978)
  57. ^ Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987)
  58. ^ Bostic five. Shaefer , 760 F.3d 352, 376 (fourth Cir. 2014) ("In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court invalidated a Virginia police that prohibited white individuals from marrying individuals of other races. The Court explained that '[t]he freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by gratuitous men' and that no valid basis justified the Virginia law's infringement of that right. [citations omitted]").
  59. ^ Kitchen 5. Herbert , 755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2014).
  60. ^ Baskin v. Bogan , 766 F.3d 648 (seventh Cir. 2014).
  61. ^ Latta 5. Otter , 771 F.3d 456, 474 (2014).
  62. ^ DeBoer five. Snyder , 772 F.3d 388, 411 (6th Cir. 2014) ("Matters exercise not change because Loving v. Virginia held that 'marriage' amounts to a central right. ... In referring to 'marriage' rather than "opposite-sexual practice union", Loving confirmed just that 'opposite-sex marriage' would accept been considered redundant, not that marriage included same-sex couples. Loving did not change the definition. [citations omitted]").
  63. ^ Amar, Akhil Reed (July 6, 2015). "Anthony Kennedy and the Ghost of Earl Warren". Slate. Archived from the original on July seven, 2015. Retrieved July six, 2015.
  64. ^ "Virginia Women in History: Mildred Delores Jeter Loving". Library of Virginia. Archived from the original on March 21, 2015. Retrieved March 4, 2015.
  65. ^ "Virginia to honor interracial marriage with land historical marker". WTVR.com. June viii, 2017. Archived from the original on June viii, 2017. Retrieved June 11, 2017.
  66. ^ *Mr. & Mrs. Loving at IMDb
  67. ^ Dionne Walker (June 10, 2007). "Pioneer of interracial marriage looks back". USAToday.com. Archived from the original on May nine, 2008. Retrieved May 8, 2008.
  68. ^ "twoscore years of interracial marriage: Mildred Loving reflects on breaking the colour barrier". International Herald-Tribune. Associated Printing. June 9, 2007. Archived from the original on May 8, 2008. Retrieved April 28, 2008.
  69. ^ Stanley, Alessandra (February 13, 2012). "Scenes From a Marriage That Segregationists Tried to Break Up". The New York Times. Archived from the original on February 14, 2012.
  70. ^ The Loving Story Archived 2012-06-12 at the Wayback Machine, accessed March 25, 2015
  71. ^ 72nd Annual Peabody Awards Archived 2014-09-11 at the Wayback Machine, May 2013.
  72. ^ McDermott, Maeve (Jan 24, 2017). "Go to Know Ruth Negga, the Oscar-Nominated Breakout Star of "Loving"". United states of america Today . Retrieved March 17, 2021.
  73. ^ "The Loving Generation". Topic.com. Archived from the original on Feb 17, 2018. Retrieved February 18, 2018.
  74. ^ Branigin, Anne (February 10, 2018). "The Loving Generation Explores the Lives of Biracial Children Born After Mixed-Race Marriages Were Legalized". The Root. Archived from the original on February sixteen, 2018. Retrieved February 15, 2018.
  75. ^ Holmes, Anna (February 10, 2018). "Black With (Some) White Privilege". The New York Times. Archived from the original on February 14, 2018. Retrieved February 15, 2018.
  76. ^ Altman, Ross (July 12, 2017). "Roy Zimmerman: Rezist". FolkWorks . Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  77. ^ Mahuzier, Marc (June 21, 2015). "50'amour en noir et blanc". Ouest-French republic. Archived from the original on September 24, 2015. Retrieved June 22, 2015.
  78. ^ Villet, Barbara; Villet, Grayness (February 14, 2017). The Lovings: An Intimate Portrait. Princeton Architectural Press. ISBN978-1616895563.

Bibliography

  • Chemerinsky, Erwin (2019). Constitutional Police force: Principles and Policies (6th ed.). New York: Wolters Kluwer. ISBN978-1-4548-9574-nine.
  • Nowak, John E.; Rotunda, Ronald D. (2012). Treatise on Constitutional Law: Substance and Process (5th ed.). Eagan, Minnesota: W Thomson/Reuters. OCLC 798148265.

Further reading

  • Aldridge, Delores (1973). "The Changing Nature of Interracial Marriage in Georgia: A Inquiry Note". Journal of Marriage and the Family unit. 35 (4): 641–642. doi:10.2307/350877. JSTOR 350877.
  • Annella, M. (1967). "Interracial Marriages in Washington, D.C". Journal of Negro Instruction. 36 (4): 428–433. doi:x.2307/2294264. JSTOR 2294264.
  • Barnett, Larry (1963). "Enquiry on International and Interracial Marriages". Spousal relationship and Family Living. 25 (1): 105–107. doi:10.2307/349019. JSTOR 349019.
  • Brower, Brock; Kennedy, Randall Fifty. (2003). "'Irrepressible Intimacies'. Review of Interracial Intimacies: Sex, Spousal relationship, Identity, and Adoption, by Randall Fifty. Kennedy". Journal of Blacks in Higher Pedagogy. 40 (40): 120–124. doi:ten.2307/3134064. JSTOR 3134064.
  • Christopher Leslie (2004) Justice Alito's Dissent in Loving five. Virginia, University of California, p. 1564.
  • Coolidge, David Orgon (1998). "Playing the Loving Card: Aforementioned-Sexual practice Marriage and the Politics of Analogy". BYU Journal of Public Law. 12: 201–238.
  • DeCoste, F. C. (2003). "The Halpren Transformation: Same-Sex Matrimony, Civil Society, and the Limits of Liberal Law". Alberta Law Review. 41 (two): 619–642. doi:ten.29173/alr1338.
  • Dorothy Robert (2014) Loving v. Virginia as a ceremonious rights determination Archived April 6, 2017, at the Wayback Motorcar, p. 177.
  • Foeman, Anita Kathy & Nance, Teresa (1999). "From Miscegenation to Multiculturalism: Perceptions and Stages of Interracial Relationship Development". Journal of Black Studies. 29 (4): 540–557. doi:x.1177/002193479902900405. S2CID 143739003.
  • Hopkins, C. Quince (2004). "Variety in U.S Kinship Practices, Noun Due Process Analysis and the Right to Marry". BYU Journal of Public Law. 18: 665–679.
  • Kalmijn, Matthijs (1998). "Intermarriage and Homogamy: Causes, Patterns, Trends". Annual Review of Sociology. 24 (24): 395–421. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.395. hdl:1874/13605. PMID 12321971.
  • Koppelman, Andrew (1988). "The Miscegenation Analogy: Sodomy Police force every bit Sex Discrimination". Yale Police Journal. 98 (1): 145–164. doi:ten.2307/796648. JSTOR 796648.
  • Newbeck, Phyl (2004). Virginia hasn't always been for lovers.
  • Pascoe, Peggy (1996). "Miscegenation Police, Court Cases, and Ideologies of 'Race' in Twentieth-Century America". Journal of American History. 83 (one): 44–69. doi:10.2307/2945474. JSTOR 2945474.
  • Pratt, Robert A. (1997). "Crossing the colour line: A historical cess and personal narrative of Loving v. Virginia". Howard Law Journal. 41: 229.
  • Villet, Gray (2017). The Lovings: An Intimate Portrait.
  • Wadlington, Walter (November 1967). Domestic Relations.
  • Wallenstein, Peter (2014). Race, Sex, and the Freedom to Ally: Loving v. Virginia. ISBN978-0-7006-2000-5.
  • Wildman, Stephanie (2002). "Interracial Intimacy and the Potential for Social Change: Review of Interracial Intimacy: The Regulation of Race and Romance past Rachel F. Moran". Berkeley Women'due south Constabulary Journal. 17: 153–164. doi:x.2139/ssrn.309743.
  • Yancey, George & Yancey, Sherelyn (1998). "Interracial Dating: Evidence from Personal Advertisements". Journal of Family Issues. xix (iii): 334–348. doi:10.1177/019251398019003006. S2CID 145209341.

External links [edit]

Links with the text of the court's decision [edit]

  • Works related to Loving v. Virginia at Wikisource
  • Text of Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) is available from:Cornell CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress OpenJurist Oyez (oral argument audio)

Other external links [edit]

  • A Groundbreaking Interracial Wedlock; Loving 5. Virginia at twoscore. ABC News interview with Mildred Jeter Loving & video of original 1967 broadcast. June 14, 2007.
  • Resources at Oyez.org including complete sound of the oral arguments.
  • Loving Decision: xl Years of Legal Interracial Unions, National Public Radio: All Things Considered, June 11, 2007.
  • The Fortieth Anniversary of Loving five. Virginia: The Legal Legacy of the Case that Ended Legal Prohibitions on Interracial Union, Findlaw commentary past Joanna Grossman.
  • Chin, Gabriel and Hrishi Karthikeyan, (2002) Asian Law Journal, vol. 9 "Preserving Racial Identity: Population Patterns and the Application of Anti-Miscegenation Statutes to Asian Americans, 1910–1950"

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Posted by: wellsimeting82.blogspot.com

0 Response to "Which Of The Following Reasons Explain Why Judicial Interpretations Such As Loving Change Over Time"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel